New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Torrens system

Legal area

Court

10 Jun 2020

EPSOM WOODS LIMITED v WAITAKERE FARMS LIMITED [2020] NZCA 226

Citation

[2020] NZCA 226
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that the registered proprietor (WFL) was entitled to summary judgment because under ss 62 and 105 of the Land Transfer Act a purchaser from a mortgagee takes title free of unregistered interests absent actual fraud or unconscionable conduct; mere knowledge of an unregistered claim does not constitute fraud or unconscionability and Epsom Woods failed to plead or evidence the necessary unconscionable conduct to sustain an in personam claim.
18 Jun 2018

THOMPSON v TURNER HOPKINS [2018] NZCA 197

Citation

[2018] 3 NZLR 299
Court

Court of Appeal

Sections 164 and 164A do not give rise to a private law cause of action for breach of statutory duty to third parties because the certification regime is directed to protecting the Registrar, the Act contains specific sanctions and a Crown compensation scheme indicating a self-contained remedial framework, and there is no clear legislative intent to create such a private right; however the appellant's separate negligence pleading alleging a duty of care by the certifying solicitor to the non-client proprietor was arguable and not fit for summary dismissal, so summary judgment against the firm…
26 Aug 2014

BURMEISTER v REGISTRAR-GENERAL OF LAND [2014] NZHC 2033

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2033
Court

High Court

Section 179 operates as a statutory cap applied after ordinary assessment of loss; because the plaintiffs' loss assessed by ordinary principles exceeded the cap, recovery is limited to the value of the land and improvements at the date of deprivation ($215,000) plus interest at 5% to judgment; deductions for monies received do not reduce the statutory cap unless proven and applicable, and the alleged additional $15,000 was not proven.
2 Aug 2012

REGISTRAR-GENERAL OF LAND V BURMEISTER AND BURMEISTER COA CA332/2011

Citation

COA CA332/2011
Court

Court of Appeal

Section 180(2) is to be interpreted to allow personalisation of the discoverability/default inquiry: default is assessed against the claimant's particular circumstances and characteristics. Applying that test, the Burmeisters were not in default in September 2002 and the limitation period did not begin then; the limitation period began when they became aware of the scam in April 2003, so the claim filed in October 2008 was timely.
4 May 2007

SHI V MURPHY HC AK CIV 2007-404-001997

Citation

openlaw-e325a633_0853_4f9f_9fe8_f45530501925.pdf
Court

High Court

The purchaser failed to tender settlement within the settlement notice period; the caveats cited were against the purchaser's interest and did not prevent registration or constitute a valid basis to show the vendor was not ready, able and willing to settle; the contract was validly cancelled and consequently the caveat no longer had a foundation and must be removed.

New Zealand Case Law

EPSOM WOODS LIMITED v WAITAKERE FARMS LIMITED [2020] NZCA 226

THOMPSON v TURNER HOPKINS [2018] NZCA 197

BURMEISTER v REGISTRAR-GENERAL OF LAND [2014] NZHC 2033

REGISTRAR-GENERAL OF LAND V BURMEISTER AND BURMEISTER COA CA332/2011

SHI V MURPHY HC AK CIV 2007-404-001997